SUBSCRIBE

This page uses JavaScript. Your browser either doesn't support JavaScript or you have it turned off. To see this page as it is meant to appear please enable JavaScript in your browser settings or use an alternative browser.

Editors defend ‘victim of beauty’ editorial

Last week we chatted about the Victim of Beauty editorial which was published by 12 magazine. The editorial shows brutally injured women as victims of beauty. I argued that portraying women, who have never been the victim of gender-based or other forms of violence to sell products – i.e. not to campaign against violence – was very insensitive.

Fashionista first posted about this, critiquing this shoot. The editors-in-chief, Huben Hubenov and Slav Anastasov, responded to her. Here is the email they sent:

First of all, we would like to say we are happy that our shoot provoked an international discussion, at some scale.

It is also important to say, that we do NOT support violence of ANY kind, and this is NOT a shoot glamorizing, or encouraging, orsupporting violence against women. We believe that images such as ours can be seen from various angles, and we think that exactly that is what is beautiful about fashion and photography in general – that anybody can understand it their own way,and fill it with their own meaning. Where some see a brutal wound, others see a skilful (sic) work of an artist, or an exquisite face of a beautiful girl.

That being said, we do understand why some accuse us of promoting, in a way, violence, but we do not agree with that, and we think that it is very narrow-minded way of looking at the photographs.

And after all, isn’t it true that we see brutally wounded people all the time, in real life – on television, in the news, in movies, videogames, magazines and websites, and they are all very different, but alike in one thing: some are real, some are not. And fashion photography is an imitation of real life, sometimes realistic, sometimes delicate, other times grotesque, or shocking.

1. How would you perceive those photographs, if they were accompanying an campaign against domestic violence? Would you still think of them as disgusting or you would praise them as brave and thought-provoking? Worth the think, isn’t it?

2. What would you say if those where bespoken men, carefully groomed, but still, terribly injured? Probably nothing, and quite frankly that’s a bit sexist.

Do you agree with this? I still don’t. On the second to last point in particular:

On point 1: Yes, worth a think, but that’s exactly what I argued. If these photos were used for an anti-violence/abuse campaign, then it would be relevant and appropriate. Showing women who have been beaten up – presumably by men – in order to sell beauty products or in order to promote something is not cool in my opinion. It almost makes the issue less important, trivializing the impact of violence against women.

What is your opinion? How would you have reacted if these photos were taken of men?

These people are annoying me. The photoshoot was bad enough but their defence of it is laughable.

Firstly, these photo’s are in no way an imitation of real life. They glamourise and, in this way, make light of a serious issue. Show me a woman who looks that good after being violently abused and I’ll allow that this photoshoot is not making light of a serious situation. To use a situation as serious as physical abuse to sell beauty products is disrespectful. I also think that it is disgraceful that they are “happy” that their shoot “provoked international discussion”. This is obviously what they hoped for all along.

I don’t think the shoot would’ve garnered as much attention if the photo’s were of men. But I do think that this says more about the nature of the editors’ intentions than society’s response. Don’t apologise for pulling the trigger on a gun that you loaded. Women are much more likely to be the victims of domestic and physical abuse. Therefore, women being portrayed as being “beaten up” is a culturally sensitive topic. That is not “sexist” as these editor’s claim. These are facts. And to critise a reaction that tries to defend itself against misrepresentation and the physical abuse of woman is completely ridiculous.

And this magazine should do a grammar check before sending out press releases. (“an campaign”)